Madras High Court
Venkatesan vs The Inspector Of Police on 9 January, 2020
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash
CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 05.12.2019
PRONOUNCED ON : 09.01.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012
Venkatesan .. Appellant/A15
in Crl.A.577/12
Nagarani
Magesh Kumar
Kanchana
Vimalkumar .. Appellants/A2,A4,A5,A9
in Crl.A.578/12
Chandrasekar
Ponmani
Srirangan
Ravikumar .. Appellants/A7,A8,A10,A11
in Crl.A.579/12
Samaraj .. Appellant/A14
in Crl.A.596/12
Rajendran
Settu .. Appellants/A1,A3
in Crl.A.600/12
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Natrampalli Police Station,
Vellore District
Crime No.451 of 2005 .. Respondent in all
Criminal Appeals
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/50
CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012
Criminal Appeals preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., to set aside
the judgment and order dated 27.08.2012 passed by the Additional District and
Sessions Judge No.III, Tirupathur in S.C.No.301 of 2009.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Karthic,
in all Crl.As Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Haroon-Al-Rasheed
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
For Respondent : Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal, GA (Crl. Side)
in all Crl.As
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.08.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.III, Tirupathur in S.C.No.301 of 2009.
2.This is a case of a suicide pact, en masse, by a family. Annapoorna (D3), aged 20 years, Archana (D4), aged 18 years and Swapna (D5), aged 15 years were the children of Subramani (D1), aged 54 years and Kamatchi (D2), aged 44 years. This family was earlier living in their natal home in Sorakkayalnatham village in Vellore District. The brother of Subramani (D1) filed a civil case against him and so, he shifted the family to Ellapalli village sometime in December 2002. Subramani (D1) was working as Tamil teacher in Jangalapuram Government High School. His wife Kamatchi (D2) was a home http://www.judis.nic.in 2/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 maker. At the time of the incident, Annapoorna (D3) and Archana (D4) were doing their graduation in the Government Arts College for Women, Walajapet and Swapna (D5) had completed her 10th standard.
2.1.Subramani (D1) bought a piece of land in Ellapalli Village from Gopal (P.W.2) and built a house in 2002. Rajendran (A1) had purchased the adjoining land from Gopal (P.W.2) and thereafter, he had encroached into Subramani's (D1's) property. Subramani (D1) protested and requested the revenue authorities to measure his property and lay the boundary stones. Accordingly, the revenue authorities surveyed the land and laid the boundary stones, clearly demarcating the property of Subramani (D1), which was prejudicial to the interest of Rajendran (A1).
2.2.It is alleged that the family members of Rajendran (A1) ganged up with the family members of Settu (A3) and Chandrasekar (A7) and started harassing and teasing Subramani (D1) and his family continuously over a period of time, so as to force Subramani (D1) to sell his property to Rajendran (A1) or leave the village, lock, stock and barrel.
2.3.The house of Settu (A3) was on the southern side and the house of Chandrasekar (A7) was on the western side of Subramani's (D1's) house. Apart from the family members of Rajendran (A1), Settu (A3) and http://www.judis.nic.in 3/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 Chandrasekar (A7), certain other persons, used to join the trio in harassing Subramani (D1).
2.4.On 19.08.2005, Kumaran (P.W.1), the co-brother of Subramani (D1) and a resident of Jangalapuram Village, which is about 4 kms away from Ellapalli village, received information that all is not well in the house of Subramani (D1) and so, Kumaran (P.W.1) and Devendran (P.W.4), Village Administrative Officer, went to the house of Subramani (D1) around 07.30 a.m. The house was locked from inside and on the main door, a note in Tamil was found, which stated, “Except police and relatives, no one should open this door” (free English translation - emphasis supplied). Therefore, the police was summoned and Mahendran (P.W.14), Inspector of Police also came to the house and inspected the place. The main door was staved in by the police and on entering the house, they were shocked to find the dead bodies of Subramani (D1), Kamatchi (D2), Annapoorna (D3), Archana (D4) and Swapna (D5). Plasters were found stuck over the mouths of Archana (D4) and Swapna (D5). The bodies of Subramani (D1), Kamatchi (D2), Annapoorna (D3) and Swapna (D5) were found on the bed and that of Archana (D4) was on the floor beside the bed.
2.5.In the almirah, the police found several envelopes with addresses and one such envelope was addressed to the Inspector of Police, http://www.judis.nic.in 4/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 Natrampalli Police Station. The police opened that envelope and found a computer typed letter in Tamil dated 16.08.2005, signed by all the deceased. The police treated the same as a complaint and registered a case in Crime No.451 of 2005 on 19.08.2005 at 08.15 a.m. under Section 174 Cr.P.C, Sections 306, 294(b), 509, 109, 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act (for brevity “TNPHW Act”) and prepared the printed F.I.R. (Ex.P46), which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 01.00 p.m. on the same day, as could be seen from the endorsement thereon.
2.6.Mahendran (P.W.14), Inspector of Police prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P26) and rough sketch (Ex.P47). He requisitioned the services of Palani (P.W.12), photographer, to photograph the bodies and the place of occurrence, and the photographs were marked as Exs.P42 and P43 (series). From the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer seized the following items under cover of mahazar (Ex.P3) :
(1) A plastic container bearing the label KUNGFU containing 80ml of liquid insecticide – M.O.1;
(2) A plastic container bearing the label MONOKOSH 36 containing 60ml of insecticide – M.O.2;
(3) A 500 ml plastic mirinda bottle containing about 50 ml of mirinda soft drink – M.O.3;
http://www.judis.nic.in 5/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 (4) A 500 ml plastic mirinda bottle containing mirinda soft drink with seal intact – M.O.4;
(5) Five stainless steel tumblers – M.O.5 (series); (6) A stainless steel water container – M.O.6;
(7) A stainless steel spoon – M.O.7;
(8) 16 khaki envelopes containing letters that were found in the almirah, the details of which are as follows :
(a) A letter dated 16.08.2005 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai (Ex.P5);
(b) A letter dated 16.08.2005 addressed to the Home Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai (Ex.P6);
(c) A letter dated 16.08.2005 addressed to the Additional Director General of Police, DCB, Chennai (Ex.P7);
(d) A letter dated 16.08.2005 addressed to the Sub Inspector of Police, Natrampalli (Ex.P8);
(e) A letter dated 16.08.2005 addressed to the Inspector of Police, AWPS, Tirupathur (Ex.P9);
(f) A letter dated 16.08.2005 addressed to the Branch Manager, LIC of India, Vaniyambadi Branch (Ex.P10);
(g) A letter dated 16.08.2005 addressed to the Branch Manager, LIC of India, Vaniyambadi (Ex.P11);
http://www.judis.nic.in 6/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012
(h) A letter dated 16.08.2005 addressed to the Branch Manager, LIC of India, Krishnagiri (Ex.P12);
(i) A letter dated 16.08.2005 addressed to the Head Master, Government High School, Jangalapuram, Vellore District (Ex.P13);
(j) A undated letter addressed to Meena sister, Manager (Hostel), Arignar Anna Arts College, Walajapet (Ex.P14);
(k) A letter dated 16.08.2005 addressed to Lord Muruga of Pazhani (Ex.P15);
(l) A letter dated 16.08.2005 addressed to Lord Venkateswara, Tirupathi (Ex.P16);
(m) A letter dated 16.08.2005 addressed to Lord Arunachaleswarar of Tiruvannamalai (Ex.P17);
(n) A letter dated 16.08.2005 addressed to E.C.Gopal, Ellapalli (Ex.P18);
(o) A letter dated 16.08.2005 addressed to the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Natrampalli (Ex.P19) and
(p) A letter dated 16.08.2005 addressed to the Chief Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Tirupathur (Ex.P20). 2.7.Apart from above, the police also seized the following items from the house under cover of mahazar (Ex.P4) :
i. An undated letter containing 46 pages writings with signatures of all the deceased (Ex.P21);
http://www.judis.nic.in 7/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 ii. A letter written under the head, details of Will containing 4 pages signed by all the deceased (Ex.P22);
iii. A letter dated 16.08.2005 containing 3 pages addressed to the Inspector of Police, Natrampalli signed by all the deceased (Ex.P23);
iv. An undated handwritten letter containing 8 pages addressed to the Inspector of Police, Natrampalli signed by all the deceased (Ex.P24);
v. A dated 22.05.2005 written by hand by Kamatchi and signed by all the deceased containing 12 pages addressed to the Inspector of Police, Natrampalli (Ex.P25);
vi. 2005 year LIC of India diary containing writings (Ex.P2) vii. 16 numbers of colour photographs 2.8.Violet (P.W.13), Sub Inspector of Police conducted inquest over the bodies of Subramani (D1), Annapoorna (D3) and Archana (D4) and Mahendran (P.W.14), Inspector of Police conducted inquest over the bodies of Kamatchi (D2) and Swapna (D5) and the inquest reports were marked as follows :
Name of the deceased Inquest report
Annapoorna (D3) Ex.P44
Swapna (D5) Ex.P45
Subramani (D1) Ex.P48
Archana (D4) Ex.P49
Kamatchi (D2) Ex.P50
http://www.judis.nic.in
8/50
CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012
After inquest, all the bodies were sent to the Government Hospital, Tirupathur for post-mortem.
2.9.Dr.Parameswari (P.W.9) and Dr.Lakshmipathy (P.W.11) performed autopsy on the bodies of the deceased. The samples of the visceral organs from the bodies were taken and sent to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Laboratory (for brevity “TNFSL”) for chemical examination and report.
2.10.Pari (P.W.10), Scientific Assistant and Chemical Examiner, TNFSL examined the visceral samples and submitted his reports to the post-mortem doctors. Viscera reports were marked as Exs.P32 to P36 and the post-mortem reports were marked as Exs.P27 to P30 and P40 & P41 (final opinion). The viscera report (Ex.P32) relating to Subramani (D1) alone shows that “monocrotophos and diazepam” were detected in the visceral samples.
Whereas, in the viscera reports in respect of D2 to D5, only “diazepam” was detected and “monocrotophos or lambda cyhalothrin” was not detected. As regards Subramani (D1), the post-mortem doctor has opined that, “ Death is due to insecticide poisoning (organo phosphorus) and diazepam”. No external injury was found on any of the bodies. The final opinion given by the post- mortem doctor as to the cause of death of D2 to D5 was “Death is due to diazepam”.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 2.11.The two plastic containers viz. M.O.1 and M.O.2 were also examined by Pari (P.W.10) and in his report (Ex.P37), it is stated that, in the contents of the plastic container (M.O.1) labelled KUNGFU, “lambda cyhalothrin 2.5% EC” was detected and in the contents of the plastic container (M.O.2) labelled MONOKOSH 36, “monocrotophos 36% SL” was detected. Pari (P.W.10) has opined as follows :
“1.Lambda Cyhalothrin is a pyrithroid type insecticide.
2.Monocrotophos is an organo phosphorus insecticide.
3.The unexpended portion of the above articles are returned herewith under the seal of this office.” Pari (P.W.10) examined the Mirinda bottles (M.O.3 & M.O.4), the 5 stainless steel tumblers M.O.5 (series), the stainless steel water container (M.O.6) and the stainless steel spoon (M.O.7) and detected diazepam in M.O.5 (series) and M.O.7. In the other articles viz. M.O.3, M.O.4 and M.O.6, nothing was detected.
From this, this Court can safely infer that, diazepam was mixed in the 5 tumblers (M.O.5 Series) and it was stirred with the stainless steel spoon (M.O.7).
2.12.The police read the letters that were seized from the house of the deceased and arrested A1 to A14, A15 and A16 on 20.08.2005 and A17 on http://www.judis.nic.in 10/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 25.08.2005. After examining witnesses and collecting various reports, investigation was completed by Azhagarsamy (P.W.15), Inspector of Police, who laid the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.9 of 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirupathur for the offences under Sections 509, 506(i), 306 (5 counts) IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act r/w Section 109 IPC against 18 accused.
2.13.On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.301 of 2009 and was made over to the Additional District and Sessions Court No.III, Tirupathur, for trial. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 509, 506(I), 306 (5 counts) IPC and Section 4 of the TNPHW Act r/w Section 109 IPC and when questioned, they pleaded “not guilty”.
2.14.To prove the case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses, marked Exs.P1 to P50 and M.O.s.1 to 7. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. No witness was examined nor any document marked on the side of the defence.
2.15.After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 27.08.2012 in S.C.No.301 of 2009, acquitted Brindha (A6), Jayammal (A12), Krishnaveni (A13), http://www.judis.nic.in 11/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 Chinnappan (A16), Arumugam (A17) and Tiger Elango (A18), but, convicted and sentenced the other accused as under :
Rank of the Provision under Sentence
accused which convicted
Rajendran (A1) Section 306 IPC 10 years rigorous imprisonment
Nagarani (A2) (5 counts) and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default to undergo 6 months
Settu (A3)
simple imprisonment for each
Maheshkumar (A4) count
Kanchana (A5)
Section 509 IPC 1 year rigorous imprisonment
Chandrasekar (A7)
Section 506(I) IPC 2 years rigorous imprisonment Ponmani (A8) Vimalkumar (A9) Section 4 of 2 years imprisonment and fine TNPHW Act r/w of Rs.10,000/-, in default to Srirangan (A10) Section 109 IPC undergo 6 months simple Ravikumar (A11) imprisonment Section 506(I) IPC 2 years rigorous imprisonment Samaraj (A14) Section 4 of 2 years imprisonment and fine TNPHW Act r/w of Rs.10,000/-, in default to Venkatesan (A15) Section 109 IPC undergo 6 months simple imprisonment The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the conviction and sentence, Venkatesan (A15) has filed Crl.A.No.577 of 2012; Nagarani (A2) Mageshkumar (A4), Kanchana (A5), Vimalkumar (A9) have filed Crl.A.No.578 of 2012; Chandrasekar (A7), Ponmani (A8), Srirangan (A10), Ravikumar (A11) have filed Crl.A.No.579 of 2012; Samaraj (A14) has filed Crl.A.No.596 of 2012 and Rajendran (A1), Settu (A3) have filed Crl.A.No.600 of 2012.
2.16.During the pendency of the appeal, Samaraj (A14) and http://www.judis.nic.in 12/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 Venkatesan (A15) died and their legal heirs did not step into their shoes. Hence, the appeals in Crl.A.Nos.596 and 577 of 2012 filed by them stand abated under Section 394 Cr.P.C.
3.Heard Mr.V.Karthic, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.S.Haroon-Al-Rasheed, learned counsel appearing for the accused and Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent State.
4.There was absolutely no trace of violence either in the place of occurrence or in the bodies of the deceased. Therefore, it can safely be discerned that the prosecution has proved beyond cavil, the fact that Subramani (D1), Kamatchi (D2), Annapoorna (D3), Archana (D4) and Swapna (D5) have committed suicide. Nor is it the plea of the defence that the five are still alive or that their death was homicidal. There is also evidence to show that plasters were stuck on the mouth of Archana (D4) and Swapna (D5). From the viscera report (Ex.P32), it is seen that Subramani (D1), has, in addition to diazepam, consumed monocrotophos insecticide.
5.As stated above, the police had recovered Exs.P5 to P20 from the almirah in the house of Subramani (D1). These letters have been kept in khaki envelopes with postal stamp pasted on the covers, with the name and address http://www.judis.nic.in 13/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 of the addressees. All these postal covers have also been marked along with their respective letters. Thus, it appears that the deceased had written these letters to be posted to the addressees and that is why, postal stamps have also been pasted.
6.Mr.V.Karthic, learned Senior Counsel made the following submissions:
i. The act of the accused will not amount to instigation to commit suicide, which is a pre-requisite, for convicting a person under Section 306 IPC;
ii. Subramani (D1) did not take any recourse to legal process to ventilate his grievance against the accused, which only shows that he was harbouring a wrong notion against them;
iii. As regards the incident on 09.08.2005, Kumaran (P.W.1) has stated that Kamatchi (D2) had brandished a broomstick at the accused and that had triggered the quarrel and nothing else; iv. No villager came to give evidence in support of Subramani (D1), which only shows that he was antagonistic towards everyone, including his own brothers and that is why, he quit his native village and settled in Ellapalli Village. Even his own caste men did not support the deceased;
v. The fact that the Subramani (D1) had consumed diazepam, a http://www.judis.nic.in 14/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 psychotropic substance, which is normally prescribed for mentally ill patients, shows that Subramani (D1) was suffering from such illness; vi. Police have not conducted any investigation as to how, diazepam came into the possession of Subramani (D1);
vii. The Investigating Officer has not investigated on the telephonic conversation mentioned in the suicide note (Ex.P1) by collecting the call records from the service provider;
viii.In the charges that were framed by the trial Court, there is no reference to the date of offence and as to the manner in which, the women were harassed;
ix. These allegations are essential for convicting a person under Section 4 of TNPHW Act. Hence, in the absence of these particulars, the conviction stands vitiated.
x. The suicide notes were not sent to the handwriting expert for opinion and hence, they cannot be attributed to the deceased. xi. The witnesses have stated that there used to be very minor quarrels between the deceased and the families of the accused. xii. Since Subramani (D1) was hypersensitive to ordinary petulances, he has taken the extreme step. The isolated remark exhorting the person to die will not amount to abetment of suicide.
7.Per contra, Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal, learned Government Advocate http://www.judis.nic.in 15/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 (Crl. Side) refuted the contentions and took this Court through the relevant portions of the evidence of the witnesses for repelling the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant.
8.Out of the 22 documents that were seized from the house of the deceased vide seizure mahazars (Exs.P3 and 4), 13 documents can be treated as suicide notes falling within the meaning of dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. These are as under :
i. The complaint letter dated 16.08.2005 (Ex.P1) which formed the basis for the registration of the F.I.R.
ii. Typed letter dated 16.08.2005 (Ex.P5) signed by all the deceased;
iii. Typed letter dated 16.08.2005 (Ex.P6) signed by all the deceased;
iv. Typed letter dated 16.08.2005 (Ex.P7) signed by all the deceased;
v. An undated handwritten letter (Ex.P8) signed by all the deceased;
vi. Typed letter dated 16.08.2005 (Ex.P9) signed by all the deceased;
vii. Typed letter dated 16.08.2005 (Ex.P15) signed by all the deceased;
viii.Typed letter dated 16.08.2005 (Ex.P16) signed by all the deceased;
http://www.judis.nic.in 16/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 ix. Typed letter dated 16.08.2005 (Ex.P17) signed by all the deceased;
x. Handwritten letter dated 16.08.2005 (Ex.P18) signed by all the deceased;
xi. Handwritten unsigned letter dated 16.08.2005 (Ex.P20); xii. An undated handwritten letter (Ex.P21) signed by all the deceased.
xiii.A diary maintained by Subramani (D1) narrating daily events (Ex.P2)
9.Before adverting to the rival submissions, it may be necessary and germane to give, as under, the free English translation of the suicide note (Ex.P1), which formed the basis of the registration of the F.I.R.
"From To
P.Subramani Teacher, M.A., B.Ed., The Inspector of Police
& Family Tamil Nadu Police
3/141-1 Ellapalli village Department,
Vedapattu post Nattramapalli Police
Nattrampalli via 635 852 Station,
Tirupathur Taluk, Vellore District.
Vellore District.
Madam/ Sir,
I am Subramani (54 years) residing in above said address in my own house from 11.12.2002 onwards along with my family.
I am working as Tamil Teacher in Jangalapuram Government High School. My wife is Su.Kamatchi (44 years) a house wife. She excels in her character. We live as one. We have three very good daughters viz S.Annapoorna (aged 20 years), S.Archana (aged 18 years) and S.Swapna (aged 15 years).
http://www.judis.nic.in 17/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 They excel in studies, discipline and honesty. Annapoorna, Archana, the two of them are studying 2nd year B.Sc.Chemistry in the Government Arts college for Women, Wallajah, the third daughter Swapna has completed X std. Owing to the treachery hatched by my own blood born, I hated my near and dear and left my native village Sorakhayal Natham, where I was born and brought up and at present I am residing in the above said address in Ellapalli village.
There is a dispute in the housing plot between me and my neighbour P.R.Rajendrian. I had regularised the area that was cheated and taken away ruthlessly from us by trespass and had it measured through the panchayatdars and laid the marking stone.
Enraged since I had exposed his dishonest practice and deceptive ways, he had harboured enmity towards us from that day onwards and vowed that he would not rest without making life difficult for us to live and would chase us from that place and has been creating problems for us day and night. From February 2004 without any rest he is torturing us day and night. Sait, who is living in the house opposite to Rajendran's house, Chandrasekaran whose house is two houses away on the west, Chandrasekaran, Chinnappan, teacher, are offering strong support and together with these three families he is causing problems day and night non-stop, making unnecessary quarrels, talking in unparliamentary filthy language scolding, teasing and bullying, humiliating and is torturing us.
I pleaded and cried to the panchayatdars several times. panchayatdars also advised them. They were not ready to accept. They tortured us all the more. In support of these people who inflict such cruelty a big crowd was gathered under the http://www.judis.nic.in 18/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 leadership of P.Samaraji S/o.Perumal Gounder, Sengon Taluk, Nattarampalli, T.Venkatesan S/o.Kullapandy @ Thimmaryan of Pandarapalli, and a Kattapanchayat was convened on 18.08.2004 and we the affected persons were threatened and they left after cautioning/warning us. They warned us saying that they would not know what would befall, if a panchayat is convened in the name of Rajendran or others. They humiliated us asking us to be careful in the presence of the panchayatdars and the person by name P.Samaraji warned us by threatening us several times.
No one spoke refuting that. Whatever be the tortures they had inflicted upon us I had not revealed it to any one other than the former President. For the reason that I was denied justice, these dangerous persons have been ridiculing and teasing my wife and children using filthy language in such a way that we are neither able to come out of our houses nor stay indoors and are torturing us, and that, if their torture continues we told the panchayatdars in a very disheartned manner that we would commit suicide.
From that day onwards all these persons viz Rajendran and his family members, Srirangan, Ravikumar, Sait and his wife and family members, Chandrasekaran, his wife, Sait's elder brother Chinnappan, Vimalkumar S/o.Asiriyar (Teacher) not stopping with eve teasing and torturing my wife and children kept asking them as to when they were going to commit suicide whether it is today or tomorrow and were laughing in a sarcastic and mocking tone. This has become a never ending story.
From February 2004 onwards these persons and their friends and relatives were threatening us over phone making it impossible for us to sleep. The caller ID purchased for this http://www.judis.nic.in 19/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 purpose also let us down and the Numbers did not get recorded properly. They were torturing us day and night in the said manner.
In order to avoid listening to the filthy language used by these persons (accused) while talking about us we played devotional songs in the tape recorder and were listening to it in a low volume (¼th volume). In order to stop that, they trespassed into our house in an unruly manner and proceeded to assault us. All the four families are coming as a crowd.
They have laid down rules orally threatening us by saying we should not show our protest to anything that they do and that we should not approach anybody for any panchayat, and should not lodge a complaint to the police and if we go against this and make a complaint to the police no one would come as witness to give evidence. From here also we would return being ashamed and would die and even if we are going to live overcoming all this they would not let us live in peace at any point of time and we will not be reveal this to anyone and unable to face all this we are going to go mad and die. This is what is going to happen. We would not be able to live here and they will not let us to live, and so saying they are creating so many problems, non stop every day without rest. They are intercepting us and are coming to assault us.
Danger is not far away and death is fast approaching because of these dangerous persons. There is nobody on our side to question these persons and emboldened by this they are planning to get rid of us. We humbly pray that if our life is endangered because of them, severe action must be initiated against all of them and justice should be established and that it should be a lesson that if these type of acts are inflicted upon http://www.judis.nic.in 20/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 innocent and pitiable persons like us in the society, severe action would be initiated against all of them and justice would prevail and we humbly pray for justice.
I am giving the atrocious activities of these criminals on a single day as an example.
1.“Kamatchi, will you come for half charge or half boil for 1/4th charge" – This is said by Rajendran
2."Sait here there are few cases for half charge do you want this" was also said by Rajendran when my wife was sweeping the entrance standing beside her and this dialogue was spoken by Rajendran, Sait, Chandrasekaran and Rajendran's younger brothers collectively)
3."How sad, I did not know earlier, I would have come earlier; itself" - This is said by Sait.
4."Bride ............ please come. You lift your clothes and show it." This is said by Sait."
5."Whether you want the eldest daughter or younger one" – This is said by Chandrasekaran.
6."Don't want either the eldest daughter, nor the younger one, their mother would do" - This is said by Sait
7."I am the person to put a crowbar into her genitals and tear it" - This is said by Ravikumar.
8."Having heard all this it is better to die neither than to live" - This is said by Srirangan
9."You! Are you just Subramani? Or Lord Labak Subramani, are you such a fool? You such an idiot," this was said by Ravikumar, Rajendran's younger brother.
10."They are thick skinned. They do not have even an iota of sense of shame. If they had, they would not be loitering without any feelings as though they are deaf". This was said by Kanchana W/o.Sait.
http://www.judis.nic.in 21/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012
11."Where does he have a sense of shame he is a shameless- woman" - This was said by Nagarani W/o.Rajendran
12."Whistling in a loud manner and calling out loudly .................. Ai what?" This was said by Sait's son.
13."These dogs who have come from some unknown place is calling for a panchayat against us. We will not stop without driving these people away from this place" - This is said by Vimalkumar.
14."Ai .................. here you only." This is said by Sait.
15."Will not spare you, without chopping your head." This is said by Chandra Sekaran.
16."You, Coward ........... It is better you die rather than live." This was said by Nagarani W/o.Rajendran.
These activities are taking place every day continuously without any break. This is becoming unbearable. We are unable to make the panchayatdars to understand. All are related to those criminals. We are people from outstation without any support, complaint cannot be lodged to the police. They are ridiculing us and talking sarcastically and threatening us saying that if we go against them to make a complaint all of them would join together and would shift the blame on us and they would prove us wrong and even if we were to die in shame the police enquiry would be such that, we had died out of shame and the blame would not fall on those criminals and therby stalling us from lodging a complaint with the police. The obscene language used by the criminal their sarcasm, mockery teasing and ridiculing laughter would drag us into unnecessary trouble and they would scold us harshly and this is continuing as a never ending story.
The Hon'ble Chief Minister Amma is toiling to prevent female infanticide, for the upliftment and rights of women and for http://www.judis.nic.in 22/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 the welfare of the women and to prevent the atrocities committed against women.
We humbly request to initiate severe action, so that the atrocities caused to innocent people like us shall not be caused to those people in the society who are unable to voice their protest or stage a fight and thus establish justice.
Place:Ellapalli Date 16.08.05 Family members of the affected persons
1. Sd/-
2. Sd/-
3. Sd/-
4. Sd/-
5. Sd/-
As stated by them they had trespassed into our house at 7.00 AM on 09.08.05 and had assaulted me (P.Subramani) my wife and my daughter Swapna very cruely. They stripped my wife of her saree and had assaulted her. They attacked the three of us with hand and stones. I have taken one or two photographs. The persons who had assaulted us.
1. P.R.Rajendran, S/o.P.C.Rangasamy, Ellapalli.
2. Nagarani W/o.P.R.Rajendran, Ellapalli.
3. M.Sait, S/o.Manicka Gounder, Ellapalli.
4. Magesh S/o. M.Sait, Ellapalli.
5. Kanchana, W/o. M.Sait, Ellapalli.
6. Brinda, D/o.M.Sait, Ellapalli.
7. Chandrasekaran, S/o.Gopal Gounder, Ellapalli.
8. Ponmani W/o. Chandrasekar, Ellapalli.
9. Vimalkumar S/o. Chinnappan, Ellapalli.
10. Srirangan S/o. P.C. Rangasamy, B.Pandhrapalli
11. Ravikumar S/o.P.C.Rangasamy, B.Pandhrapalli
12. Rajendran's mother and
13. Krishnaveni D/o.B.C.Rangasamy, B.Pandhrapalli M.Tamilselvan Sait's mother, M.Chinnappan Teacher, his wife, T.Venkatesan S/o.P.Pantharapalli Kullapandi @ Thimmarayan, Sait's brother-in-law Natrampalli Madan, came here to support them and about 60 persons joined together and began to assault us.
http://www.judis.nic.in 23/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 The village people who had gathered there intercepted them and protected us. We lodged a police complaint at Nattarampalli. A person by name Nattarampalli, Tiger Sokkalampatty Arumugam Secretary of Jolarpet P.M.K. Union acted in support of the persons who had assaulted us and prevented us from getting justice from the police department.
Since they did not get any punishment they are troubling us more than before. They are celebrating this distributing sweets in our presence. They are torturing us mockingly saying that wherever we go and make a complaint they will throw the blame on us such that we will not be able to establish it individually and they will escape out of it easily, and they are threatening us in person and over the phone.
They are saying that they would not spare us who have lodged a complaint against them even a single day and are torturing us saying that they would not let us live there. Even while enquiring us in the police station on the basis of the complaint they had asked us to sell our housing plot measuring 1ft in breadth and 162ft in length on the eastern side of our compound to Rajendran. Based on the arrangements made by Rajendran their persons are compelling us. We did not consent to this. From what is going to be done to him next time he is going to run away from his house just like that. Sait is torturing us by saying to Rajendran that it is his responsibility to misappropriate it from us and give it to him. The time is nearing for us to commit suicide, not able to withstand the tortures that is being given to us or that the time has come for us to run away and they are narrating the brave action of assault that had been committed on us and are making a mockery and laughing at us. We are not able to bear this disgrace.
http://www.judis.nic.in 24/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 The threat to our lives on account of them is nearing. If our life is in danger then the aforesaid persons are themselves responsible. We humbly pray not to let Justice die along with us. We humbly request you to establish justice and thereby seek blessing through virtuous deeds.
The diary, the letter running to 76 pages and a few of the photographs of the accused are there in the house.
A family without support seeking for justice.
1. Sd/-
2. Sd/-
3. Sd/-
4. Sd/-
5. Sd/-
Those who tortured us and cause for our death:
1. P.R. Rajendran, S/o P.C. Rangasamy, Ellappalli
2. M. Settu, S/o Manikka Gounder, Ellappalli
3. Chandrasekaran, S/o Chinnapaiyan @ Gopal Gounder, Ellappalli
4. C. Vimalkumar, S/o Chinnappan, Ellappalli
5. Srirangan, S/o P.C. Rangasamy, P. Bandarappalli
6. Ravikumar, S/o P.C. Rangasamy, P. Bandarappalli
7. Magesh, S/o Settu, Ellappalli
8. P. Samiraji, S/o Perumal Gounder, Nattarampalli, Sengaan Circle
9. T. Venkatesan, S/o Kullapandi @ Thimmarayan, P. Bandarappalli and the family members and friends of these persons.
We humbly submit that all the persons in the aforesaid family are involved in this. We humbly request you to institute a case of defamation against these inhuman murderers who have humiliated our family and spread slanderous information about us and tortured us and deprived us of our livelihood and to hand over the compensation amount obtained as mentioned hereunder to the Sri Ramakrishna Mutt, Natrampalli and to utilise the interest accrued from the aforesaid permanent investment to the people who are in distress.
http://www.judis.nic.in 25/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012
1.The amount for defamation about Rs.25,00,000/-
2.Loss of income (Head of the family)
for P.Subramani Rs.23,00,000/-
for K.Kamatchi (wife) Rs. 5,00,000/-
for K.Annapoorna (daughter Rs.75,00,000/-
for K.Archana (daughter) Rs.60,00,000/-
for K.Swapna (daughter) Rs.50,00,000/-
----------------------
Total Rs.2,38,00,000/-
----------------------
Regards,
family members requesting for justice
1. Sd/-
2. Sd/-
3. Sd/-
4. Sd/-
5. Sd/-”
The portions underlined above are English translations of the lyrics of some lewd Tamil songs which will be discussed later.
10.The contents of Ex.P1, Ex.P5, Ex.P6, Ex.P7, Ex.P8, Ex.P9, Ex.P15, Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 are the same, but, only the addressee differs. Apart from the 13 documents referred to in paragraph No.8 above, there are other handwritten letters containing the same story, which have been marked as Ex.P23, Ex.P24 and Ex.P25. Ex.P25 is a letter dated 22.05.2005 written by hand in Tamil, wherein, the addressee is shown as S.Kamatchi, W/o.Subramani and addressed to the Inspector of Police, Natrampalli Police Station. This letter can also be treated as a suicide note and a dying declaration of Kamatchi (D2), though it was written three months before suicide, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Law has not fixed any backward time limit from the suicide of a person to exclude a suicide note left by him or her. http://www.judis.nic.in 26/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012
11.In Ex.P25, apart from other allegations, it is stated that the family of the accused attempted to assault the family of the deceased on four occasions viz. in February 2004, August 2004, February 2005 and on 10.03.2005. In the suicide notes (Ex.P1) and Exs.P5 to P9, there is a reference to an incident that is said to have taken place on 09.08.2005, in which, the involvement of Nagarani (A2), Settu (A3), Magesh (A4), Kanchana (A5), Brindha (A6), Chandrasekar (A7), Ponmani (A8), Vimalkumar (A9), Srirangan (A10), Ravikumar (A11) and Krishnaveni (A13) has been mentioned. In the suicide notes, it is alleged that on 09.08.2005, the aforesaid named accused attempted to attack Subramani (D1), Kamatchi (D2) and Swapna (D5) and attempted to disrobe Kamatchi (D2). Kumaran (P.W.1) and his wife Kannikaparameswari (P.W.6), have in their evidence, spoken to about the incident on 09.08.2005.
12.The free English translation of the evidence of Kumaran (P.W.1), is as follows :
“Subramani is my co-brother (my wife Kannikaparameswari and Kamatchi are siblings); I am a resident of Jangalapuram village; I am working as Superintendent in the Directorate of School Education in Chennai; my in-laws hail from the neighbouring Andhra Pradesh State; my third sister-in-law Kamatchi married Subramani and they were in http://www.judis.nic.in 27/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 Ellapalli village; her husband Subramani was working as a Teacher in the Government High School; they have three daughters Annapoorna, Archana and Swapna; Annapoorna and Archana were studying in a college in Walajah, Swapna was studying in the Government Higher Secondary School, Natrampalli; I know all the accused; Subramani had purchased a land from Gopal, the President of Ellapalli panchayat sometime in 1998; in the year 2002, Subramani obtained loan and built a house; on the eastern side of his house, is the residential plot of Rajendran; Rajendran also constructed a house after Subramani had constructed his house; while constructing his house, Rajendran encroached ½ a feet into Subramani’s plot and placed a window in the encroached portion; when Subramani questioned him, the problem started; in August 2004, a panchayat was held in the village under the aegis of Gopal and Samaraj, in which, it was decided that both should maintain status quo; in support of Rajendran, Settu, Chinnappan and Chandrasekar spoke; thereafter, problems started between Subramani and those who supported Rajendran; after the panchayat, the family of the accused started abusing the family of the deceased; after Subramani went to school, when Kamatchi was alone at home, they used to threaten her; they used to speak in vulgar language; Subramani had apprised me of all this on several occasions; my wife and I would go to Subramani’s house and advise him restraint; thereafter, the harassment increased day by day; I advised Subramani to speak to Gopal and Senrayasamy to http://www.judis.nic.in 28/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 settle the issue; on 09.08.2005, at 07.00 a.m., I received a phone call from Subramani and he asked me to come immediately to his house saying that, the family members of Rajendran and his wife Nagarani are quarrelling with him; he also mentioned that Srirangan, Kanchana and Brindha, joined the quarrel; I went to his house around 07.30 a.m., when I went there, I found lot of stones inside the compound; Subramani’s clothes and Kamatchi’s clothes were torn, rice was found strewn in front of his house; when I enquired him, he said that the family members of Settu and Rajendran have attacked them; thereafter, I took Subramani to the police station to give a complaint; my sister-in-law (Kamatchi) gave a complaint; Natrampalli police said that they will call the other side in the evening for enquiry; again at 7’o clock, I went to Natrampalli police station; police called the family members of Settu and Rajendran and enquired them; in front of the police station, Tiger Elango was talking to Subramani; Tiger Elango advised Subramani not to precipitate the matter further and to resolve the issue amicably. Next day i.e. on 10th, I returned to my house; when I enquired Subramani, he told me that they have started teasing again and were distributing sweets; I advised him to remain calm and asked him, whether I should intervene, for which, he replied that, if I intervened, the problem will become more worse; on 19.08.2005, around 07.00 a.m., Senrayan and his friend Rajamanickam came to my house and told that Subramani’s house was found locked and something has been stuck on the door of the house; therefore, my http://www.judis.nic.in 29/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 wife and I went to Subramani’s house around 07.30 a.m., we found a handwritten notice pasted on the door, which read as, “Except police and my relatives, no one should open this door”; on enquiries, I was told that police were already intimated; by then, a crowd gathered in front of the house; I went round the house and found all windows were closed;
thereafter, the Inspector of Police, Natrampalli Police Station came along with the Village Administrative Officer and other officials, including village President Gopal; in their presence, the main door was opened with a crowbar; on entering the house, I saw Kamatchi, Annapoorna and Swapna lying dead on the bed and Archana was lying dead on the floor; on the mouths of Archana and Swapna, plasters were stuck; near the bed, there was a wooden stool, on which, insecticide bottle, mirinda bottle, one tablespoon, one water container, two tumblers were there; the police searched the almirah in the room and found a bunch of envelopes and diary, the police opened an envelope and found a letter written by the deceased, wherein, he has narrated the entire sequence of events in full detail; all the deceased have signed in that statement; the Inspector showed me the letter and asked me whose signature it was, I identified the signatures of the deceased in that; by then, more crowd had gathered outside the house; the police sent the bodies for post-mortem and took custody of the articles found there.” The material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.7 and the diary was marked as Ex.P2.
http://www.judis.nic.in 30/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012
13.Kumaran (P.W.1) was subjected to grilling cross-examination by the defence. In the cross-examination, he has stated that, the problem between the accused and the deceased began in 2004. He has specifically stated in the cross-examination that Subramani will sign in Tamil, whereas, his wife and children would sign in English and that, when the police asked him to identify the signatures in Ex.P1, he identified them. In the cross-examination, he further stated that on 09.08.2005, he received a call from Subramani and also gave the phone number of Subramani as 242930. He has further stated that when Subramani called him, he went there. He also stated that since Subramani’s wife brandished a broom, the quarrel ensued.
14.Mr.Karthic placed much emphasis on this statement of Kumaran (P.W.1) and submitted that the incident on 09.08.2005 had occurred, because of the provocation by Kamatchi (D2).
15.The fact is that Kumaran (P.W.1) was not present, when the incident on 09.08.2005, had actually happened. Kumaran (P.W.1) was called by Subramani (D1) over phone and only when, Kumaran (P.W.1) went to Subramani’s (D1’s) house, which is 4 kms away from his village, the incident was already over. Kumaran (P.W.1) saw the clothes of Subramani (D1) and Kamatchi (D2) were torn. When he asked them, they told him that the http://www.judis.nic.in 31/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 accused attacked them and tore their clothes. The isolated statement of Kumaran (P.W.1) in the cross-examination that the showing of broom by Kamatchi (D2), triggered the quarrel on the 9th is hearsay. Whereas, the evidence of Kumaran (P.W.1) that he saw Subramani (D1) and Kamatchi (D2) with torn clothes is relevant under Section 7 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Kannikaparameswari (P.W.6), who had accompanied Kumaran (P.W.1) to the residence of the deceased on 09.08.2005, has also corroborated the evidence of Kumaran (P.W.1).
16.Coming to the contention of Mr.Karthic that the suicide notes were not sent to the handwriting expert, the Investigating Officer has explained that he was not able to get the admitted signatures and handwritings of the deceased and therefore, he was unable to send the suicide notes for expert opinion.
17.Be that as it may, Kumaran (P.W.1), who is a close relative of the deceased, has clearly identified the signatures of the deceased in the suicide note. What was not elicited in the chief-examination, was elicited in the cross- examination of Kumaran (P.W.1) and he has clearly stated that Subramani (D1) would sign in Tamil and D2 to D5 would sign in English. As stated by him, the suicide notes have also been so signed. It is not necessary that in every case, the report of an handwriting expert is essential to prove a signature or any http://www.judis.nic.in 32/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 writing. Section 47 of the Evidence Act, 1872 permits proof of handwriting via the evidence of a person, who is acquainted with it. There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the evidence of Kumaran (P.W.1) on this aspect.
18.That apart, Gulzar Ali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [(1998) 2 SCC 192] is a locus classicus on the law relating to proof of handwriting and signature. The sapient words of K.T.Thomas, J., speaking for the Bench, are worth extracting.
“9.It must be remembered that expert evidence regarding handwriting is not the only mode by which genuineness of a document can be established. The requirement in Section 67 of the Evidence Act is only that the handwriting must be proved to be that of the person concerned. In order to prove the identity of the handwriting any mode not forbidden by law can be resorted to. Of course, two modes are indicated by law in Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act. The former permits expert opinion to be regarded as relevant evidence and the latter permits opinion of any person acquainted with such handwriting to be regarded as relevant evidence. Those and some other provisions are subsumed under the title “Opinion of third persons, when relevant”. Opinions of third persons, other than those enumerated in the fasciculus of provisions, would have been irrelevant. Among the permitted opinions those mentioned in Sections 45 and 47 are also included. So it cannot be said that identity of handwriting of a document can be established only by resorting to one of http://www.judis.nic.in 33/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 those two sections. There can be other modes through which identity of the handwriting can be established. Citing an example, if a letter is seized from the possession of ‘A’ and the letter contains the name of the sender as well as the name of the sendee and if such sendee happens to be ‘A’ himself, those circumstances even without resorting to the mode indicated in Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act, would be sufficient to draw an inference that the author or even scribe of that letter is the sender and ‘A’ is the sendee of it.
10.Reference can be made to two decisions of a three-Judge Bench of this Court. First is Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. [AIR 1957 SC 381 : 1957 Cri LJ 559] wherein authorship of some questioned letters has been found on the strength of “various items of external and internal evidence”. The same three-Judge Bench has observed in Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay [AIR 1957 SC 857 :
1958 Cri LJ 1346] thus:
“The proof of the genuineness of a document is proof of the authorship of the document and is proof of a fact like that of any other fact. The evidence relating thereto may be direct or circumstantial. It may consist of direct evidence of a person who saw the document being written or the signature being affixed. It may be proof of the handwriting of the contents, or of the signature, by one of the modes provided in Sections 45 and 47 of the Indian Evidence Act.
It may also be proved by internal evidence afforded by the contents of the document. This last mode of proof by the contents may be of considerable value where the disputed document purports to be a link in a chain of correspondence, some links in which are proved to the satisfaction of http://www.judis.nic.in 34/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 the Court. In such a situation the person who is the recipient of the document, be it either a letter or a telegram, would be in a reasonably good position both with reference to his prior knowledge of the writing or the signature of the alleged sender limited though it may be, as also his knowledge of the subject-matter of the chain of correspondence, to speak to its authorship.”
11.We find much support from the aforesaid observations to formulate the legal position that the modes of proof envisaged in Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act are not exhaustive for proving the genuineness or authorship of a document.” It is legitimate for a prudent man to infer from the facts and circumstances of a given case that a suicide note found near a body was prepared and signed by the deceased. It is no one’s case that some angel or devil had written those 16 letters and left them in the house of the deceased.
19.The question is, whether the acts of the accused would amount to instigation or inciting to commit suicide, so as to bring them within the fold of abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 IPC. This Court is aware that, in matrimonial suicides, the relatives of the deceased wife can be mulcted with criminal liability under Section 306 IPC with the aid of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872. No such presumption is available in a case of this nature. Therefore, we have to fall back upon the facts of this case for finding out, if the acts of the accused would fall within the meaning of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
http://www.judis.nic.in 35/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012
20.In the suicide note (Ex.P25) left by Kamatchi (D2), it is stated that on 18.08.2004, a panchayat was held in the village, in the presence of the village elders and at that time, she made a passing statement that if the harassment continues, she would have no other alternative, but, to commit suicide. This statement of her became the tarak mantra for the accused to tease her and her family members continuously by asking them, “when are you going to commit suicide.”
21.Mr.Karthic contended that no villager, including Gopal (P.W.2), the village headman, supported the prosecution case with regard to the panchayat that was held on 18.08.2004. It is true that the villagers, Gopal (P.W.2), Raji (P.W.3), Rajaram (P.W.7) and Senrayasamy (P.W.8) did not support the prosecution case and the reason for that is not far to seek. The incident in this case occurred on 09.08.2005. The charge sheet was filed in the year 2008. The matter was committed to the Court of Session in the year 2009 and the trial began only on 10.08.2011, with the examination of Kumaran (P.W.1). This yawning gap, in the opinion of this Court, would by itself speak volumes and provide the reason for the villagers turning hostile.
22.Admittedly, the deceased family had migrated from the neighbouring Andhra Pradesh to Sorakkayalnatham village in Tamil Nadu, from http://www.judis.nic.in 36/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 where, they shifted to Ellapalli village, where the incident took place. Whereas, the accused party were natives of Ellapalli village and naturally, the Ellapalli villagers ganged up to save their kinsmen. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Ellapalli villagers turned hostile during trial. The suicide note (Ex.P25) was handwritten by Kamatchi (D2) herself on 22.05.2005, wherein, she has referred to about the panchayat on 18.08.2004 and its after effects. Again, there is a reference to the said panchayat, even in the suicide note (Ex.P1) that was left by Subramani (D1). From the above, it is clear that the travails of the deceased family began after the panchayat on 18.08.2004.
23.What was the motive for this harassment? The suicide notes, the evidences of Kumaran (P.W.1), Danammal (P.W.5) and Kannikaparameswari (P.W.6) show that Rajendran (A1) and his family were aggrieved by the laying of boundary stones by the revenue authorities for demarcating the two properties, which exposed Rajendran’s (A1’s) encroachment into the property of Subramani (D1). Thereafter, it became a prestige issue for Rajendran (A1) and his family members, who wanted to ensure that the family of the deceased either sell their property to them or leave the village.
24.Mr.Karthic took this Court through the evidence of Kumaran (P.W.1) and submitted that Kumaran (P.W.1) has admitted that the deceased belongs to Vanniyar community, which is a dominant community. Whereas, http://www.judis.nic.in 37/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 Rajendran (A1) belongs to Kurumbar community, which is a minority community. He built up his argument further and contended that, had the deceased been friendly with his own caste men viz. Settu (A3), who belongs to Vanniyar community, they would not have gone in support of Rajendran (A1), which only shows that the deceased was a cantankerous person. To buttress this submission, further he added that the deceased was not even able to be compatible with his own brothers and that is why, he shifted his residence from Sorakayalnatham to Ellapalli village. Therefore, Mr.Karthic contended that, the deceased architected his own destiny, on account of his quarrelsome nature.
25.This Court is unable to find any substance in this argument. From the evidence of Kumaran (P.W.1), it appears that one of the brothers of Subramani (D1), had filed a civil case against him and not the other way round. Subramani (D1) appears to have been a peace-loving man. Since he did not want to have any friction with his siblings, one of whom had filed a case, he shifted to Ellapalli village for purchasing peace. This cannot be misinterpreted as quarrelsome nature. Though caste is a very dominant factor, villagers more often display village kinship by transcending caste considerations, especially, when there are strong economic motives. Here, the motive was to grab the property of the deceased by hook or crook. This sinister motive would have naturally blurred caste considerations, especially, when the deceased was a migrant to Ellapalli from Sorakkayalnatham village. This Court is unable to http://www.judis.nic.in 38/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 withstand the temptation to quote from Dr.Ambedkar's classic speech in the Constituent assembly on 04.11.1948 on village communities in India :
“Such is the part the village communities have played in the history of their Country. Knowing this, what pride can one feel in them? That they have survived through all vicissitudes may be a fact. But mere survival has no value. Their question is on what plane they have survived. Surely, on a low selfish level. I hold that this village republics have been the ruination of India. I am, therefore, surprised that those who condemn provincialism and communalism should come forward as champions of the village. What is the village but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism? I am glad that the Draft Constitution has discarded the village and adopted the individual as its unit.” Things have not changed much in the countryside, even 70 years after Dr.Ambedkar’s speech. For those in the higher rung of the feudal set up, especially if they have large land holdings, village is a heaven, for the rest, it is not so. Subramani's (D1's) family fell under the latter category.
26.What was the modus operandi of the accused? The modus operandi of the accused, as could be seen from the suicide notes was, to sing obscene songs on seeing the deceased women and repeatedly ask them, when they are going to fulfill their vow of committing suicide. Notwithstanding that, they also physically assaulted and tried to disrobe Kamatchi (D2) on 09.08.2005. The lewd song sung by the accused belongs to the Qawali genre, where one singer would pose a question and the other would give a fitting http://www.judis.nic.in 39/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 repartee. The suicide note (Ex.P1) gives the lyrics and the names of the singers thus; Chandrasekar (A7), “Do you want the elder girl or the younger girl”; for which, Settu's (A3's) reply is: “I want neither, as the mother is more beautiful”.
27.Mr.Karthic's contention that use of diazepam by Subramani (D1) shows that he must have been suffering from mental depression, since diazepam is an anti-depressant requires to be addressed now. Mr.Karthic took this Court through the evidence of Dr.Parameswari (P.W.9), the post-mortem doctor, who in the cross-examination, has stated that diazepam is an anti-depressant and can be sold only on prescription. Mr.Karthic submitted that in the absence of the police finding out the source of diazepam for Subrmani (D1), it should be inferred that he was taking that medicine as he was suffering from mental depression.
28.It is true that all the deceased have consumed diazepam and Subramani (D1) has additionally consumed monochrotophos. There is absolutely no evidence on record to infer that Subramani (D1) was suffering from mental depression. There was not even a suggestion of this nature put to the prosecution witnesses nor has this plea been taken by the accused in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The profile of the deceased does not show any suicidal tendency. Subramani (D1) was a school teacher and there http://www.judis.nic.in 40/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 was no material to show that he displayed erratic behaviour in the school. Kamatchi (D2) was a house wife. Annapoorna (D3) and Archana (D4) were college going girls and Swapna (D5) was a school girl.
29.Assuming for a moment that Subramani (D1) was suffering from mental depression, there is no reason for Kamatchi (D2) to write a letter (Ex.P25) as early as 22.05.2005. If the whole family had been suffering from mental illness, the villagers would have known about it earlier and they would have been able to find out the doctor, who was treating them. The police have not seized any medical prescription from the house of the deceased. In this Country, one cannot come to a conclusive inference that pharmacists will sell schedule drugs only on a medical prescription. If Subramani (D1) alone had committed suicide, then one can possibly infer that he was suffering from mental depression. Kamatchi (D2), being the mother of the three children, would not have permitted Subramani’s (D1’s) erratic will to prevail upon her daughters. In fact, Kamatchi (D2) herself has written Ex.P25 letter, wherein, the harassment meted out by the deceased has been set out. In that letter, it is stated that, in order to avoid hearing the abuses hurled by the accused, she would play devotional songs in the tape recorder in her house. That apart, they did not attempt to commit suicide immediately after 22.05.2005. What must have triggered the suicide was, the shameful incident on 09.08.2005, in http://www.judis.nic.in 41/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 which, the accused had attempted to disrobe Kamatchi (D2).
30.Mr.Karthic contended that the deceased did not even approach the police for help nor they took recourse to legal remedies. It is seen from the evidence of Kumaran (P.W.1) that, Subramani (D1) and Kamatchi (D2) had gone to the police station and complained. The police had also called the accused party for enquiry. At that time, Tiger Elango (A18) interfered and assured that he will amicably settle the matter. Therefore, the deceased party did not pursue the complaint further. After 09.08.2005, the harassment increased manifold. Even in the suicide note, it is stated that, there is no point in going to the police, because, the accused party are capable of turning the tables against them.
31.Coming to the legal issue, as to whether harassment of this nature would attract Section 306 IPC, the legal position is no more res integra, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Ude Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana [2019 (9) SCALE 831], wherein, the Supreme Court has elaborately discussed all the earlier rulings and has held in paragraph 16.1 as follows :
“... ... But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the http://www.judis.nic.in 42/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 four-corners of Section 306 IPC. ... ...” State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and Others [2019(14) SCALE] relied upon by Mr.V.Karthic, is a case of matrimonial suicide, where the accused were acquitted by the High Court, challenging which, the State had approached the Supreme Court. In the facts of that case, the Supreme Court held that the act of the accused therein would not amount to abetment. Whereas in this case, the facts are totally different.
32.At the risk of repetition, it may not be out of place to recapitulate the family background of the deceased. Subramani (D1) was an ordinary peace loving Tamil teacher in a school. He had three daughters and no sons.
Subramani’s (D1’s) house is located in the midst of the house of Rajendran (A1), Settu (A3) and Chandrasekar (A7). Subramani (D1) is an immigrant to Ellapalli village from Sorakkayalnatham village. He had no local support. The one-point agenda of the three families was to ensure that Subramani (D1) left the village lock, stock and barrel. To achieve that, they engaged in orchestrated harassment. In the suicide note itself, the individual overt acts of each of the accused has been vividly stated.
33.Apart from the suicide note (Ex.P1), the diary (Ex.P2) shows the incidents of harassment meted out by the deceased date wise. If this Court were to give English translation of the entries in the diary (Ex.P2), this http://www.judis.nic.in 43/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 judgment would become unwieldy. Suffice it to refer to only some of the incidents noted in the diary. A reading of the diary (Ex.P2) shows that every morning, when Kamatchi (D2) opened the house to sweep and put kolam (rangoli) in front of their house, one or the other of the accused would deliberately pass lewd remarks like inviting her for sex. In the diary (Ex.P2), it is recorded on 29.06.2005 as follows :
“While my wife was sweeping the house entrance, Settu (A3) who was taking bath in front of his house, lowered his underwear and showed his private part.” The diary is replete with such vulgar incidents meted out by each named accused. The incident that took place on 09.08.2005 has also been clearly set out in the diary. In the entry on 16.08.2005, it is stated that, “Today at 5’o clock, Rajendran (A1), his wife Nagarani (A2), his brothers Srirangan (A10) and Ravikumar (A11), Chandrasekar (A7) were speaking disparagingly about us. At 6’o clock, Settu (A3), his wife Kanchana (A5) and Magesh (A4) stood by the gate and started abusing us from the road. At 5’o clock in the evening, Vimalkumar stood on the terrace of Settu's (A3’s) house and provoked us.” Thus, the evidence on record satisfies the test of continuous harassment laid down in Ude Singh (supra) perpetrated by the accused.
34.Now, coming to the individual overt acts of the accused, a reading of all the suicide notes and the diary (Ex.P2) shows that, there are http://www.judis.nic.in 44/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 materials against A1 to A18. However, the trial Court has relied upon Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 alone to fasten criminal liability on the appellant herein and has acquitted the others.
35.With regard to the contention of Mr.Karthic that, charges that, were framed by the trial Court did not specify the time, date and nature of harassment, this is not a murder case based on ocular evidence, to specify the date and time of attack, but a case of continuous harassment over a period of one year, which had resulted in pushing the entire family of the deceased to the wall and making them end their lives, due to helplessness and frustration. This is evident, not only from the suicide notes, diary (Ex.P2), but, also from the letters written by the deceased to Lord Muruga of Palani (Ex.P15), Lord Balaji of Tirupathi (Ex.P16) and Lord Arunachaleswarar of Tiruvannamalai (Ex.P17). The accused were furnished with the copies of all the suicide notes under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and they knew what they were being charged of. They have understood the imputations against them very well, engaged the best legal minds in the trial Court and have thoroughly cross-examined the witnesses. Therefore, it is too late in the day to complain about infirmity in the charge. Section 465 Cr.P.C. stares them at their face.
36.The deceased has also left a document titled Will (Ex.P22), which http://www.judis.nic.in 45/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 has been signed by all the deceased, but, does not have any attesting witness. In that document (Ex.P22), it is stated that, the house property belonging to Subramani (D1) should go to his wife after his death and after her death, it should go to their three children. It is also stated that if none of the family members survive, the entire property should go to Sri Ramakrishna Mission, Natrampalli. If Sri Ramakrishna Mission is not willing to take up the request, the property will vest with the Government and that the Government should use it for education of poor children. Subramani (D1) has addressed three letters (Exs.P10, P11 and P12) to the Life Insurance Corporation of India, in respect of each of the policies held by him and in those letters, he has stated that the amounts on the policies should go to his legal heirs and if none of them survive, it should go to Sri Ramakrishna Mission, Natrampalli.
37.Out of 18 accused who were charged, the trial Court has convicted 12 accused and has acquitted the rest. For fastening criminal liability on the 12 accused, the trial Court has relied upon the overt acts mentioned against each of the accused in the suicide note (Ex.P1) and in the diary (Ex.P2). Since the free English translation of one suicide note (Ex.P1) which vividly sets out the individual overt acts has been given above, it will be superfluous to repeat the overt acts of the appellants again.
38.Coming to the charge under Section 4 of the TNPHW Act read http://www.judis.nic.in 46/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 with Section 109 IPC, the act of the menfolk in singing lewd songs and calling Kamatchi (D2) for sex whenever they saw her in public, would indubitably attract Section 4 of the TNPHW Act. Though the womenfolk cannot be convicted under Section 4 of the TNPHW Act, yet their conviction with the aid of Section 109 IPC for abetting their men to harass Kamatchi (D2) and her three daughters, is not illegal. This can be expatiated by way of an illustration. 'A', a lady instigates 'B', a man to rape 'C', a lady. Though 'A' cannot be convicted under Section 376 IPC, she can be convicted under Section 376 read with 109 IPC.
39.In fine, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved the charges framed against the appellants beyond doubt.
40.Coming to the question of sentence, this Court does not find any justification to reduce the sentence because, it is necessary to make it loud and clear that women in this country deserve an exalted place and should be respected. Though Nagarani (A2), Kanchana (A5) and Ponmani (A8) are themselves women, they seem to have happily joined the menfolk in harassing Kamatchi (D2) and the three girls instead of protecting them.
41.In the result :
➢ C.A.No.577 of 2012 filed by Venkatesan (A15) stands abated. http://www.judis.nic.in 47/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 ➢ C.A.No.578 of 2012 filed by Nagarani (A2), Magesh Kumar (A4), Kanchana (A5) and Vimalkumar (A9) is dismissed. ➢ C.A.No.579 of 2012 filed by Chandrasekar (A7), Ponmani (A8), Srirangan (A10) and Ravikumar (A11) is dismissed. ➢ C.A.No.596 of 2012 filed by Samaraj (A14) stands abated. ➢ C.A.No.600 of 2012 filed by Rajendran (A1) and Settu (A3) is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to secure the appellants herein and commit them to prison for undergoing the remaining period of sentence, if any. The Registry is directed to send the original records to the trial Court forthwith.
Before parting, this Court places on record its appreciation to the trial Judge for perspicuously setting out the period of judicial remand undergone by each of the appellants for set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Though instructions have been issued to all the trial Courts to record this, only some of the Judicial Officers, as in the case at hand, are following the instructions scrupulously.
To sum up :
➢ C.A.Nos.577 and 596 of 2012 stand abated. ➢ C.A.Nos.578, 579 and 600 of 2012 are dismissed.
http://www.judis.nic.in 48/50 CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 09.01.2020 gya P.N.PRAKASH, J.
gya To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Court No.III Tirupathur
2.The Inspector of Police Natrampalli Police Station Vellore District
3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras
4.The Deputy Registrar Criminal Side High Court, Madras CRL.A.Nos.577,578,579,596 & 600/12 http://www.judis.nic.in 49/50